SPOUSES ONESIFORO and ROSARIO ALINAS, petitioner vs.

SPOUSES VICTOR and ELENA

ALINAS, respondents. G.R. No. 158040, April 14, 2008

FACTS: Spouses Onesiforo and Rosario Alinas (petitioners) separated sometime in 1982, with Rosario
moving to Pagadian City and Onesiforo moving to Manila. They left behind two lots identified as Lot 896-
B-9-A with a bodega standing on it and Lot 896-B-9-B with petitioners' house. These two lots are the
subject of the present petition.

Petitioner Onesiforo Alinas (Onesiforo) and respondent Victor Alinas (Victor) are brothers. Petitioners
allege that they entrusted their properties to Victor and Elena Alinas (respondent spouses) with the
agreement that any income from rentals of the properties should be remitted to the Social Security
System (SSS) and to the Rural Bank of Oroquieta City (RBO), as such rentals were believed sufficient to pay
off petitioners' loans with said institutions.

Sometime in 1993, petitioners discovered that their two lots were already titled in the name of
respondent spouses.

Records show that after Lot 896-B-9-A was extra-judicially foreclosed, Transfer Certificate of Title covering
said property was issued in the name of mortgagee RBO. Later on the lot was conveyed to respondent
spouses. RBO's TCT over Lot 896-B-9-A was then cancelled and TCT No. T-12664 covering said lot was
issued in the name of respondent spouses.

Lot 896-B-9-B was also foreclosed by the SSS. However, pursuant to a Special Power of Attorney signed by
Onesiforo in favor of Victor, dated March 10, 1989, the latter was able to redeem, on the same date, Lot
896-B-9-B from the SSS for the sum of P111,110.09.

Petitioners then filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ozamis City a complaint for recovery of
possession and ownership of their conjugal properties with damages against respondent spouses.

Ruling of RTC: Ruled in favor of respondent spouses. Petitioner spouses have not proven that they
entrusted respondent spouses with the care and administration of their properties. It declared
[respondents] Victor Jr. and Elena Alinas owners of Lot 896-B-9-A with the building (bodega) standing
thereon and affirming the validity of their acquisition thereof from the Rural Bank of Oroquieta, Inc.;
But it declared [petitioners] Onesiforo and Rosario Alinas owners of Lot 896-B-9-B with the house
standing thereon. Onesiforo's sale of the house to respondent spouses without the consent of his wife is
null and void and respondent spouses' redemption thereof from the SSS not having conferred its
ownership to them.

Ruling of CA: CA affirmed the RTC decision with regards to the ownership of properties. Respondent
spouses are deemed owners of Lot 896-B-9-A with the building (bodega) but It ruled that the sale of Lot
896-B-9-B with the house has no force and effect.

Issue: whether or not the sale of Lot 896-B-9-B (with house) by Onesiforo is valid?

SC Ruling: NO. sale of Lot 896-B-9-B (with house) to respondent spouses by Onesiforo is void since the
sale was done without the consent of his wife, Rosario.
Although petitioners were married before the enactment of the Family Code on August 3, 1988, the sale
in question occurred in 1989. Thus, their property relations are governed by Chapter IV on Conjugal
Partnership of Gains of the Family Code.

Art. 124. The administration and enjoyment of the conjugal partnership property shall belong to both
spouses jointly. x x x

In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration of
the conjugal properties, the other spouse may assume sole powers of administration. These powers do
not include the powers of disposition or encumbrance which must have the authority of the court or the
written consent of the other spouse. In the absence of such authority or consent the disposition or
encumbrance shall be void

x x x By express provision of Article 124 of the Family Code, in the absence of (court) authority or written
consent of the other spouse, any disposition or encumbrance of the conjugal property shall be void.

Thus, pursuant to Article 124 of the Family Code and jurisprudence, the sale of petitioners' conjugal
property made by petitioner Onesiforo alone is void in its entirety.

It is true that in a number of cases, this Court abstained from applying the literal import of a particular
provision of law if doing so would lead to unjust, unfair and absurd results.

In the present case, the Court does not see how applying Article 124 of the Family Code would lead to
injustice or absurdity. It should be noted that respondent spouses were well aware that Lot 896-B-9-B
is a conjugal property of petitioners. They also knew that the disposition being made by Onesiforo is
without the consent of his wife, as they knew that petitioners had separated, and, the sale documents do
not bear the signature of petitioner Rosario. The fact that Onesiforo had to execute two documents,
namely: the Absolute Deed of Sale dated March 10, 1989 and a notarized Agreement likewise dated March
10, 1989, reveals that they had full knowledge of the severe infirmities of the sale. As held in Heirs of
Aguilar-Reyes v. Spouses Mijares, "a purchaser cannot close his eyes to facts which should put a
reasonable man on his guard and still claim he acted in good faith. "Such being the case, no injustice is
being foisted on respondent spouses as they risked transacting with Onesiforo alone despite their
knowledge that the subject property is a conjugal property.

Verily, the sale of Lot 896-B-9-B to respondent spouses is entirely null and void.

BAR QUESTION

Sometime in 1993, Spouses Juan and Maria Dela Cruz got married in Manila but later on decided to go on
their separate ways. Juan transferred in Bohol while Maria settled in Cebu. They left 2 properties in Manila,
one of which is a conjugal property, a house where they used to live together while the other one is a lot
with a bodega. Juan entrusted the said properties to his brother Raul with the agreement that any income
from rentals of the properties should be remitted to the Rural Bank to pay off Juan’s' loans with said bank.
However, Juan later discovered that the two lots were already extra-judicially foreclosed by Rural Bank
and that both are already titled in the name of Raul. Juan filed a complaint for recovery of possession and
ownership of the conjugal properties he owned with damages against Raul. The RTC ruled in favor of Raul
and declared him as the owner of both properties affirming the validity of his acquisition thereof from the
Rural Bank. Is the RTC correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The RTC is not correct with regards to the house since it is a conjugal property of spouses Juan and Maria.

Article 124 of the Family code states that The administration and enjoyment of the conjugal partnership
shall belong to both spouses jointly. In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to
participate in the administration of the conjugal properties, the other spouse may assume sole powers of
administration. These powers do not include disposition or encumbrance without authority of the court or
the written consent of the other spouse. In the absence of such authority or consent, the disposition or
encumbrance shall be void.

Here, the sale of Juan and Maria’s conjugal property made by Juan alone is void in its entirety. It should
be noted that Raul being the brother of Juan, is well aware that the house is a conjugal property of Juan and
Maria. He also knew that the disposition being made by Juan is without the consent of his wife, as he knew
that they had already separated, and that the sale documents do not bear the signature of the wife.